RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jeff's points below, and have a few other concerns.

Determining level of consensus - I believe how this currently is
explained/defined is still not workable. The RAA, and I believe Registry
contracts as well, allow contracted parties to question claims of
consensus on policies. This was not really an issue in the past under
the task force model, which included direct voting, but it is a growing
concern under the WG model. We can discuss further, but I strongly
believe that all stated views and claims of consensus of any level MUST
indicate the specific WG members in support. Anyone that does not want
to be identified with a particular view should not be counted, and I
question why they would be participating in the first place. We cannot
have anonymous participation. So, I believe there is more work that
needs to be done in this section. These WGs are not setting optional
standards, they are establishing mandatory regulations for contracted
parties and for registrants.

Who may question a consensus call - As I pointed out before, I strongly
feel that any one WG member should be able to raise an issue or to
question a consensus call. There are protections in place if someone is
being abusive. Their concern should be heard and looked into. That act
may embolden others to speak up who were too timid to do so individually
themselves, or may uncover problems that were not evident to anyone
else. Do we really think that the Chair or Council can tell someone that
their concern will more or less be ignored without possibly creating
more trouble than it is worth, or that there will never be a situation
where they may want to act? Making exceptions to this rule will be very
difficult and could create some nasty situations. Let the rules on
abusive behavior deal with it.    

Liaison neutrality - I can live with this, but I think it will have an
impact on the number of Councilors willing to take a liaison role. At
least from my perspective, I would likely not.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, November 12, 2010 8:55 am
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Working Group <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, 
>       "gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Avri beat me to the punch...wouldn't be the first time :)
> 
> Avri is correct that as a registry, we have an issue with respect to PDPs 
> with the phrase " This is sometimes just referred to as Rough or Near 
> Consensus" inserted into the definition of Consensus.  We are concerned that 
> that addition may implicitly lower the threshold required in the ICANN 
> contracts and be read by some that "consensus" as defined in the WG-WT report 
> is lower than it should be.
> 
> We will certainly consider Avri's suggestion below, but as I explained on 
> today's PPSC call, this is a very sensitive subject for the contracted 
> parties, because unlike any organization I am aware of that may use the terms 
> "rough" or "near" consensus, the decisions of the GNSO based on Consensus in 
> a PDP is binding on the contracted parties.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:49 AM
> To: Working Group
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Fwd: [] issue of rough or near consensus
> 
> 
> FYI from [gnso-ppsc]
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: 12 November 2010 09:41:34 EST
> > To: gnso-ppsc@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-ppsc] issue of rough or near consensus
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > In anticipation of Jeff's issue concerning the inclusion of the words 
> > "rough" and "near" in
> > 
> >> This is sometimes just referred to as Rough or Near Consensus.
> > 
> > 
> > I think leaving them in is very important since people who are new to the 
> > ICANN context do not understand ICANN's usage of consensus to mean 
> > something other than unanimity.
> > 
> > What might be an solution (though I think this would need to be passed by 
> > the WT) would be to include a footnote that says something like:
> > 
> > The terms _Rough or Near Consensus_ are included so that those who are 
> > unfamiliar with ICANN usage can associate the definition of _Consensus_ 
> > with other definitions and terms of art they may be more familiar with.  It 
> > should be noted that in the case of a GNSO PDP originated Working Group, 
> > all reports, especially Final Reports, must restrict themselves to the term 
> > _Consensus_ as this may have legal implications.
> > 
> > 
> > Note: I am offering this recommendation because I do wish to be accused, as 
> > I was in the meeting, of holding up the release of this report by not 
> > complying with the Registries position.  In this case at least, I think 
> > there is a simple solution that preserves the work yet hopefully can 
> > assuage the Registries.
> > 
> > a.